agreement waiver in Indiana

1879Wilson v. Vance, 55 Ind. 394 ; Cutsinger v. Nebeker, 58 Ind. 401 ; The Pennsylvania Co. v. Sedwick, 59 Ind. 336 .

1877Wilson v. Vance, 55 Ind. 394 , and Cutsinger v. Nebeker, 58 Ind. 401 .

1879Wilson v. Vance, 55 Ind. 394 ; Cutsinger v. Nebeker, 58 Ind. 401 ; The Pennsylvania Co. v. Sedwick, 59 Ind. 336 .

1877Wilson v. Vance, 55 Ind. 394 , and Cutsinger v. Nebeker, 58 Ind. 401 .

2000The Gabriel court further held that while a party is still free to challenge an agreement at a hearing “by establishing the existence of ‘some unfairness, unreasonableness, manifest inequity in the terms of the agreement, or that the execution of the agreement was procured through fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, duress, or lack of full disclosure.’ ” Id. (quoting Stockton v. Stockton (1982), Ind.App., 435 N.E.2d 586, 589 ), absent such evidence, the written agreement will be upheld.

2000The Gabriel court further held that while a party is still free to challenge an agreement at a hearing “by establishing the existence of ‘some unfairness, unreasonableness, manifest inequity in the terms of the agreement, or that the execution of the agreement was procured through fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, duress, or lack of full disclosure.’ ” Id. (quoting Stockton v. Stockton (1982), Ind.App., 435 N.E.2d 586, 589 ), absent such evidence, the written agreement will be upheld.

1986Therefore, absent any allegation of prosecutorial vindictiveness which has not been done here, see Hughes v. State (1985), Ind.App., 473 N.E.2d 630 , trans. denied, the prosecutor could dismiss the charges as agreed and later re-file them unless Bowers is seeking a form of acquittal through the agreement as a bar to all further prosecution on the alleged crime.

1981Knight & Jillson Co. v. Miller (1909), 172 Ind. 27 , 87 N.E. 823 ; Wiley v. Baumgardner et al. (1884), 97 Ind. 66 .

1981Knight & Jillson Co. v. Miller (1909), 172 Ind. 27 , 87 N.E. 823 ; Wiley v. Baumgardner et al. (1884), 97 Ind. 66 .

1981Knight & Jillson Co. v. Miller (1909), 172 Ind. 27 , 87 N.E. 823 ; Wiley v. Baumgardner et al. (1884), 97 Ind. 66 .

1981Knight & Jillson Co. v. Miller (1909), 172 Ind. 27 , 87 N.E. 823 ; Wiley v. Baumgardner et al. (1884), 97 Ind. 66 .

1895A somewhat different question would be presented had the lien of the mechanics attached before the agreement of waiver was entered into, as was the case in Raleigh Bank v. Moore and Malmgren v. Phinney, supra. Since the Wackers yielded precedence only to the amount of appellant’s mortgage, and the appellant permitted the mechanics to take a place ahead of them, the Wacker mortgage must come in, whenever there has been applied on the mechanic’s liens and the appellant’s claim taken together,' the amount for which Wackers gave precedence.

1879Wilson v. Vance, 55 Ind. 394 ; Cutsinger v. Nebeker, 58 Ind. 401 ; The Pennsylvania Co. v. Sedwick, 59 Ind. 336 .

1877Under this section it has often been held, that “ the court, in a civil action, has no power, without the agreement or waiver of the parties, to grant time to make an application for a new trial, by motion, upon written cause filed, beyond the term at which the verdict or decision is rendered, unless for a cause afterwards discovered.” Krutz v. Craig, 53 Ind. 561 .

1869It is a case of very frequent occurrence, that the interest is made payable before the principal becomes due; and no one ever doubted that, in such a ease, an action could be maintained for the non-payment of the interest merely.” Fake v. Eddy, 15 Wend. 76 .

1864Robison v. Godfrey, 2 Mich. Rep. 408 .

1848The only point decided was, that the agreement did not bar the judgment-creditors, because the consideration was inadequate, the lord chancellor Cowper saying: “ Articles made for a valuable consideration, and the money paid, will, in equity, bind the estate, and prevail against any judgment-creditor mesne betwixt the articles and the conveyance; but this must be when the consideration is somewhat adequate to the thing purchased.” This case is cited in Hurst v. Hurst, 2 Wash. C.

1839Chandler v. Herrick, 19 Johns. 129 .